"The Constitution for instance, whilst establishing the respective powers of the federal compact, does not specify nor even refer to, the unwritten conventions upon which the Westminster system of government operates. Responsible government, the primacy of the House of Representatives and even the office of the Prime Minister, are nowhere mentioned in the Australian Constitution, yet these constitutional conventions play a very important role in the successful functioning or process of the Australian Constitution."

"Australia remains one of the few countries in the world without a constitutional charter of rights. This means that rights in Australia are neither inalienable nor inviolable. Rights are granted, protected, limited and potentially removed by acts of government."

From: The Constitution and Protecting Rights,

"Australia is now the only common law country that does not have a statement of its rights and freedoms, and there is clearly not enough protection for basic rights within the current system. Canada instilled its Bill of Rights in 1982, NZ in 1990 and the UK in 1998."

Pg4 Extract from "Political Leadership on a Bill of Rights" Senator Brian Grigg, Aust Democrats

[continuation of reply to mhaze - sorry - the system wouldn’t let me upload this for 3 hours]
In 1975, it was very hard for the Liberals to hold the line in the senate. Many in a position to know said they would have yielded in a few days had Kerr not acted. The same pressure would happen in a repeat crisis, but the law would more clearly be against the result the opposition was trying to achieve. In 1975, there were lots of claims by conservatives about a convention that a government without supply must resign. I consider any such convention only applied to governments denied supply by lower houses, but the point muddied the waters about who was right, and who was wrong. Under my proposal, it would be very clear which house had which rights, and senate intransigence would be seen for what it was - an attempt to overthrow the result of the last election.

I have drawn the proposal this way so that it does not bring up any issue about reductions in the senate's formal powers, which would raise arguments about federalism. The proposal would allow the senate to reject money bills which did discriminate for or against one or more States. The only thing the senate could not do - at a practical level, not a legal level - would be to use that mechanism to change the government or force an early election.

The crucial difference is this: the decision to dismiss a government and/or go to the polls would not be vested in an unelected 3rd party, but in one of the protagonists in the dispute. So, re-considering 1975, the senate would have needed to hold out long enough to convince Whitlam and his supporters to go to an election; rather than convincing Kerr. There is no reason to think that in such circumstances an elected government would be less bloody-minded than the opposition.

Phillip, let's go back to what "federation" was meant to achieve. From what I read in the lead up to 1900, most of the thrust of argument was for unitising the rail systems and trade between the colonies - for obvious reasons. The whole ideal of that is watered down by the transferring of powers via the Commonwealth.

In the mid 1850's, John West asked this: "Who opposes Federation?" Coming up with the following. 1. Those who believed it would lead to a dissolution of the British connection. 2. Those who wanted to keep functions of government under their control. 3. 'Merely ambitious men surcharged with egotism'.

The British connection is very strong apart from the appeals to the Privy Court now taken over by the High Court, and having witnessed the raft of legislation put through in the dead of night under Fuhrer Howard and Co - post 9/11, there are many bumbling around Malfunction Junction aka Capital Hill who have no respect for the rule of law or indeed the separation of powers. That common law rights, fought for and won over centuries of legal and social history, both here and in Britain were abrogated and thrown away at a whim speaks volumes about the creeping fascism many choose to ignore. We certainly have today in government, the men (and women) supercharged on egotism.

What should have happened is the standardising of laws. Yes, retain the "state" identities, but from 1901 institute uniform laws across all Australian jurisdictions with relevant state case law applicable in future cases/decisions. It would have gotten us some way out of the mess that we have today.

WA's Remonstrance of 1933 would have gained that state 'independence' had their been a greater will, & the proposed increase on tax for big miners recently put forward by Pilbara member Brendon Grylls will no doubt be hosed down by the vested interests in Canberra and elsewhere who see a threat to their annual dalliances with 'rent boys' & hookers in the Bahamas, garages full of Porches and condominiums on the Gold Coast.

Albie, I am less concerned with Federation and far more concerned with democracy, as defined by one person one vote, one vote one value, at all levels of the Federation. Any other arrangement suggests some are more important than others.

My problem with an elected president is the same as that expressed by the government, that he or she will be, de-facto, empowered by the people to express opinions which are political, and as he/she will almost certainly have a political leaning one way or the other, is likely to be biased.

This has a double face, either they will have the same leaning as the elected government, or of the opposition. If they support, politically, the opposition, they could use their position to undermine the government.

A head of state elected by parliament will be a faceless nobody, with no political leanings, who almost no-one will be able to name, an inevitable consequence of both sides making sure the person is of no threat to them.

Vote Prince Harry and Sophie Monk for Australia's first king and queen.

The alternative is a nobody, a politically interfering president, or Prince Charles.

Hi Philip Howell,

We've somewhat moved away from the republic debate here since it seems your major concern is to firmly establish to primacy of the House of Representatives as against the G-G/President and the Senate. Were that primacy to be established it could be done just as easily with or without a republic.

In the end, the issue is about supply. Effectively the GG doesn't and hasn't overturned the clear wishes of the House except in that one case where the smooth operation of the nation was endangered by the parliamentary impasse over supply.

It may be true, as you say, that in 1975 the Senate might have caved to pressure had Kerr not intervened although Fraser and (toe-cutter)Withers always maintained that the Senate would have remained firm. Some Libs were nervous because the polls were moving against them but the leadership was confident that would reverse once the election was on, as indeed happened.

So the primacy of the House is clear and well-established everywhere other in regards supply where a recalcitrant senate can hold the government to ransom. I'm not sure your proposals overcome that problem.

Might I suggest the following options:

1) A change to section 54 which in effect allowed, when supply was withheld by the Senate, for appropriations to continue on a monthly basis at the rate of 1/12th of the previous year's appropriations for all items. Thus the government could continue indefinitely through to the end of their term, although they wouldn't be able to implement new spending measures. The problem for the recalcitrant senate would be that the government could then bide their time and then call a DD at a time of their advantage while continuing supply would remain assured.

2) A provision that any decision by the GG (or whatever) to prorogue the parliament would need ratification by a simple majority in the House. Kerr sacks Whitlam, prorogues parliament, House vote fails to ratify, election delayed. Thus the Senate can never win - supply continues although constrained and the election timing is entirely in the hands of the PM.

/TBC